quote:

ORIGINAL: xxxAdamxxx

1. Introduction
The Government is currently proposing to introduce new laws that will make it illegal for anyone to possess what they refer to as ‘extreme pornography’
Currently it is illegal under the Obscene Publications Act to publish an obscene article, or to have an obscene article for publication for gain.
The new law proposes that this would be extended to make it an offence to simply have such material in your possession.
Current CPS guidelines will prosecute as obscene some of the activities that those into SM fetish play consent to participate in such as:


• Flagellation (that’s CP/flogging to you and me)
• Torture with instruments
• Bondage (especially where gags are used)
• Activities involving perversion or degradation (such as drinking urine or smearing excreta on a persons body)
There are other categories they include such as rape, which some SM players simulate as part of a consensual scene. The Government also specifically refers to breath control (e.g. "plastic bags over the head") as being unacceptable. Customs officials have successfully prosecuted for the import of DVD’s showing fisting, so that would like be on their hit list.
The actual definition in the new law refers to pictures showing ‘serious violence in a sexual context, or serious sexual violence.
This is defined as violence where a prosecution of bodily harm or assault could be brought, or where there is severe injury.
Of course the Spanner case makes it clear that even the ‘victim’ of assault can be prosecuted along with the ‘assailant’ – provided the assault is for sexual purposes and the injuries sustained are more than "transient or trifling".
The new proposed law will make it in addition illegal to possess images of "actual or realistic depictions" of any of the above.
So even if the ‘assault’ is only a simulation but looks realistic – you could be prosecuted if you possess a picture of it.
It will no longer matter that these pictures are simply for your private use, and are not for commercial gain, you could still be prosecuted for possessing them
It doesn’t matter if you do not distribute or publish these, you could still be prosecuted for possessing them Possession of Extreme pornographic material Consultation on proposed legislation ML 29/11/2005 Page 2

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamKeithsslave
I dont see what the UK Government is doing as being any different to those states in the US (I do believe there are some) and in Australia that ban sodomy (in one aussie state pictures of BJ's are not allowed to be published). It is a violation of rights and them using a case where someone claimed to be inspired by images on the internet in order to bring this law into affect is their only reason, and a political one at that. The government believes they need to be seen to be doing something, chances are half the members of parliment are in BDSM relationships and have oodles of video and pictures at home etc.

quote:


Personaly I think the UK government would have done far better to have ensured those 10 year old boys from Liverpool that sadistically and brutually murdered that little boy stayed inside for life than to waste their time on this.
They might also like to consider attacking the "pretend" child pornography industry, where young looking 18+ year olds are waxed completely to look 12 and placed in sexual scenes etc The manufacturers of this porn get away with it because the participants are 18+ and are able to consent. I dont see how this type of porn is not as "extreme" as any of the BDSM stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: petdave

Just be careful what you wish for on the child pornography thing... the horrors of kiddie porn are the big rallying cry in the U.S., and has been extensively used as the "thin edge of the wedge" to harass erotica vendors of all sorts. U.S. 2257 record-keeping requirements are a good example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamKeithsslave

If being able to abolish child pronography means losing a few civil liberties or the ability to buy porn legally or whatever then I am willing to take that chance. Though fact is child porn will, sadly, always be out there, as will consenting adult porn if that were banned. My opinion is why make easily available and legal child porn (ie young adults made out to be kids) available to peadophiles?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamKeithsslave

If being able to abolish child pronography means losing a few civil liberties or the ability to buy porn legally or whatever then I am willing to take that chance. Though fact is child porn will, sadly, always be out there, as will consenting adult porn if that were banned. My opinion is why make easily available and legal child porn (ie young adults made out to be kids) available to peadophiles?

I am not willing to take that chance, I am sure we all know that first they came for the jews.........  

Within the UK we have some of the most restrictive, yet at the same time flexible and often unenforcable laws in the planet (yes thats my opinion and I am aware of the inherent contradictions). Who is to decide what is legal and what is not under such legislation, and please bear in mind minors are already covered by other legislation,

Yes, minors are, but again I will point out that the fetishes and appetites of the peadophile are being fed by consenting 18+ year old being portrayed - rather successfully - as children. I'm sorry but that needs to be stopped. There are no easy answers in stopping one form of fetish/fantasy porn without another, ie cant stop fake child porn without stopping fake rape porn etc. Legislation needs to be formed that disallows all and any forms of child porn <period> Though I am not so niave as to believe it can be wiped out completely. I dont envy legislators, they really need to be very word specific, which in turn creates loopholes etc.

this is SOLELY about acts between consenting adult, even if not actually real - a drawing, sketched freehand of stick figures could fall foul and get you a stretch in jail.

I am not sure the proposed legislation covers stick figures, but I get your point.
 
The BBFC have already commented that a number of movies available on general release, NOT 'R' rated would be made illegal given the legislation as it stands. Off the top of my head (having just watched one of the directors other movies) Videodrome would be outlawed and lets face it, thats not what even Mrs Grundy would class as disgusting, perhaps just weird[:)].

Lets face it there are many many movies that would suddenly fall foul of the new legislations, and some probably should lol.

The Obscene Publications Act with its deprave and corrupt test is still adequate for deciding what is acceptable to the masses, the new legislation is yet another kneejerk response to yet more "focus groups" with their own agendas, take hunting as one example and to really risk upsetting folks and getting flamed, dare I say, no lets whisper it.........  Megan

Laws should restrict what the government can do, not what the invidual can do.

Laws are created to protect everyone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
EDIT

Right here, right now, the computer you sit at, would it get you imprisoned?

Probably not, I dont tend to visit porn sites of any form, BDSM or otherwise.

Dont forget all those banners in your browser cache
Dont forget the cookies that proved you had the image on your screen (even if it was a pop under window that you never actually saw)

My 11 year old son is in real trouble, he once was curious about his cat and typed pussy into the search engine - LOL.

And (runs and gets asbestos suit ready) Whilst I DO NOT condone him, remember what happened when Paul Gadd went for a PC upgrade, you next.

Ummm........... who?

Oh before I forget.... Regualtion of Investigatory Powers Act means that the powers that be dont need to enter your home, just packet sniff your ISP, and ask your cable/sattelite TV provider what subscription or pay per view programmes you have watched.

Sleep well, dont have nightmares, they really are watching you :)

Yeah, Big Brother is already out there, we are all in the poop for something lol, I'll take a sleeping pill and will have a great sleep.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamKeithsslave

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamKeithsslave

If being able to abolish child pronography means losing a few civil liberties or the ability to buy porn legally or whatever then I am willing to take that chance. Though fact is child porn will, sadly, always be out there, as will consenting adult porn if that were banned. My opinion is why make easily available and legal child porn (ie young adults made out to be kids) available to peadophiles?

I am not willing to take that chance, I am sure we all know that first they came for the jews.........  

Within the UK we have some of the most restrictive, yet at the same time flexible and often unenforcable laws in the planet (yes thats my opinion and I am aware of the inherent contradictions). Who is to decide what is legal and what is not under such legislation, and please bear in mind minors are already covered by other legislation,

Yes, minors are, but again I will point out that the fetishes and appetites of the peadophile are being fed by consenting 18+ year old being portrayed - rather successfully - as children. I'm sorry but that needs to be stopped. There are no easy answers in stopping one form of fetish/fantasy porn without another, ie cant stop fake child porn without stopping fake rape porn etc. Legislation needs to be formed that disallows all and any forms of child porn <period> Though I am not so niave as to believe it can be wiped out completely. I dont envy legislators, they really need to be very word specific, which in turn creates loopholes etc.

It would be equally feasible to re-write existing laws regarding images of minors than to create a whole new raft of legislation that has little to do with minors. Just add in a clause along the lines of "to include images of adults intending to be portrayed as minors" that covers everything for minors and the 19 yo girl pretending to be 13 no matter if there is the appearance of violence, bdsm, rape, etc etc. Whereas the images I took of my last partner, who can no way be mistaken for a minor I can still sit back and view with fond memories. 
 
The problem with not being word specific is that rather than creating loopholes it widens interpretation to catch things that were not (perhaps) the intention of the original law.

this is SOLELY about acts between consenting adult, even if not actually real - a drawing, sketched freehand of stick figures could fall foul and get you a stretch in jail.

I am not sure the proposed legislation covers stick figures, but I get your point.
 
The wording is not video, photograph, computer modelled 3-d rendering, movie etc, just image, this is what I hinted at earlier about widening scope.
 
Little Johhny, aged 14, is annoyed at his older sister, so on the back of a school book he sketches badly a picture of him hitting big sister. BANG, that given the over-eagerness of some of our "protectors" can result in little Johnny ending up on the sexual offenders register, bang goes his dream of being the best school teacher ever who would teach basic maths to the next Einstien. An extreme example, yes, an impossible one, no.

The BBFC have already commented that a number of movies available on general release, NOT 'R' rated would be made illegal given the legislation as it stands. Off the top of my head (having just watched one of the directors other movies) Videodrome would be outlawed and lets face it, thats not what even Mrs Grundy would class as disgusting, perhaps just weird[:)].

Lets face it there are many many movies that would suddenly fall foul of the new legislations, and some probably should lol.

Gone with the wind, that could fall foul too (I seem to recall a scene where Rhett pulls Scarlett out of bed and gives her a slap or two), and that is listed by a good number of folks as the best movie ever!

The Obscene Publications Act with its deprave and corrupt test is still adequate for deciding what is acceptable to the masses, the new legislation is yet another kneejerk response to yet more "focus groups" with their own agendas, take hunting as one example and to really risk upsetting folks and getting flamed, dare I say, no lets whisper it.........  Megan

Laws should restrict what the government can do, not what the invidual can do.

Laws are created to protect everyone.
NO! this law does not protect me from anyone or anything, nor does it protect my young daughters. All it does is remove my right to sit here at silly hours of the day or night and look at things I find arousing. Including pictures taken in my own home, of my own partner, with her consent engaging in acts that not only did she consent to but actively asked for. As we both have copies of these pictures thats another broken home to add to the list, another pair of children in the social care system, another career wrecked, and thats before I start on mine!

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamKeithsslave

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
EDIT

Right here, right now, the computer you sit at, would it get you imprisoned?

Probably not, I dont tend to visit porn sites of any form, BDSM or otherwise.
More I suspect a case of hopefully not, Visit the main collar me site? that has images that could get you a spell inside! It does not have to be from a porn site, there are probably images on the bbc, or imdb sites that would become unlawful.

Dont forget all those banners in your browser cache
Dont forget the cookies that proved you had the image on your screen (even if it was a pop under window that you never actually saw)

My 11 year old son is in real trouble, he once was curious about his cat and typed pussy into the search engine - LOL.
Oops my sarcasm detector just blew a fuse [:D]
And (runs and gets asbestos suit ready) Whilst I DO NOT condone him, remember what happened when Paul Gadd went for a PC upgrade, you next.

Ummm........... who?
Suffice to say, a public figure went to his local high street computer store for a PC repair/upgrade, the staff at said store went trawling thru his drive and as a result he was arrested and imprisoned for possesing unsuitable images of minors, you probably know him better as Gary Glitter. I repeat I do NOT condone that person, but with the proposed laws it could be my neighbour, it could be the sub I hope to meet thru here then I'll be really annoyed :)

Oh before I forget.... Regualtion of Investigatory Powers Act means that the powers that be dont need to enter your home, just packet sniff your ISP, and ask your cable/sattelite TV provider what subscription or pay per view programmes you have watched.

Sleep well, dont have nightmares, they really are watching you :)

Yeah, Big Brother is already out there, we are all in the poop for something lol, I'll take a sleeping pill and will have a great sleep.
He aint there, not quite for everybody, but he can be for any individual.
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamKeithsslave

Second attempt at a reply, was almost at the end and it disappeared [:@] - maybe cos it got too long?

Now although I agree that it would be far easier for the existing legislation to be altered to include consenting adults pretending to be children, its not going to happen. According to what the OP posted the government has an agenda, a vote winner, they need to show that they will alter what is legally allowed to be viewed because on crackpot claimed he only killed the woman he did cos he saw it on a web site - or whatever. Funny - I dont recall them doing the same with video games after the Liverpool boys claimed violent games and TV made them kill that small child. The sooner people realise that games, TV, movies and pictures dont make people do things to people the better. These people are warped to begin with.

Back in the 80s (before video cassettes had any age restrictions) a number of people were shot dead in a small rural town, the press jumped on the bandwagon claiming the gunman was influenced by the Rambo movie. After the Bulger incident you refer to the press in some forms blames the "chucky" movies. In neither incident, was there ANY evidence to link the crimes with the images, not even circumstancial. Kneejerk, legislation as I have claimed earlier. If we take it as read that such people are warped to begin with, no amount of un-enforcable legislation is going to stop such people.


I dont think little Johnny will get into trouble either, his drawing might be violent, as is the scene in Gone With the Wind might be violent, but its not pornographially violent. I dont see the legislation making past Parliment, too many of the Members are probably closet Dom/mes, subs/slaves etc to want to see it passed.

"Dear Member of Parliment, as a concerned member of the moral majority I demand you vote to ban such obscene material before somebody else gets killed. Signed Concerned BusyBody"
 
MP thinks, "Im in the closet so I can vote for this, after all nobody need know and if I vote against such legislation people might start digging and guess why"
 
If the Govt get their way parliment need never even discuss let alone vote on the issue. Failing that, take another law, recently passed that was for a minority, to the detriment of a smaller, less vocal, minority and I believe the vast majority of the population couldnt really care less about. All the Govt. need do is repeatedly present it and then say well stuff you, we will make it law anyway just as was done for hunting with hounds.

In regards to the point about the law doesnt protect anyone, I agree, its not going to protect your daughters, but the government needs to be seen to be trying to protect your daughters. There are laws though that DO protect your daughters and my daughter and son.

This law like so many other is pointless, unnessecary (other than as a vote grabber) and quite likely un-enforcable. Any bad law has a negative effect on other laws. Take the clampdown on traffic speed, net result more unisured, unregistered vehicles and growing animosity towards the police. If the government needs to be seen to do something I would suggest they actually do something constructive and intelligent that does not impinge on the rights of others. A young child was knocked down 3 streets away from here last week, is banning all traffic, from a childs tricycle right up to a 40tonne truck the answer? I don't believe it is. Somebody who has eaten a steak has doubtless killed in the past, should everybody now live of lentils & bread crusts? Why I should I suffer because of the actions of one person?

Although I enjoy viewing the ocassional pornographic movie when in mixed company, I am not inclined to view it alone online, though I certainly do defend your right to do that. And certainly any photos you have taken that are of a personal nature between you and a consenting partner either past or present should not come under the scutiny of the government or laws.
The point is this ill thought out legislation treats my own home photos as being no better or no worse than images that would even repulse me (and thats not easily done!). It is not just about viewing online, if you have a video tape, a dvd, a photograph, even a vintage 8mm filmstrip, you are in trouble under these laws.

Ahhh........ Gary Glitter! When I was a wee girl back in the UK, about 5 years old, my best friend and I would go wild when he came on TV - we both had a thing for his hairy chest. Now of course the very thought of him grosses me out. And I agree although what he had on his hard drive was disgusting - he did have the right to the same privacy that we all have - but does beg to ask - how many computer techs delve into our personal lifes when they do computer repairs?
Having worked in the trade, the answer is most of them! Having worked inside an ISP I also know how often bored techs will sit and watch traffic out of sheer nosiness. Now I work in a different field and am even more aware that privacy is little more than a myth. I could, should I wish access illegal material safely with no chance of being traced, as anyone who was deliberately flouting laws would soon figure out how to do, however pick 40 users at random on here who are doubtless decent folk, how many would liable to be picked up accidentally and suffer as a result of this law, whilst the people who really deserve to be tracked & dealt with will carry on immune?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Back in the 80s (before video cassettes had any age restrictions) a number of people were shot dead in a small rural town,
 
Hungerford? Micheal Ryan?
 
the press jumped on the bandwagon claiming the gunman was influenced by the Rambo movie. After the Bulger incident you refer to the press in some forms blames the "chucky" movies. In neither incident, was there ANY evidence to link the crimes with the images, not even circumstancial.
 
Oh I agree, the idea these movies created the problems are purely a manufactured idea by the defence teams lawyers in order to get their clients off, unfortunately too many people believe this to be true.
 
Kneejerk, legislation as I have claimed earlier. If we take it as read that such people are warped to begin with, no amount of un-enforcable legislation is going to stop such people.
 
Again you will get no argument on my from that one.

"Dear Member of Parliment, as a concerned member of the moral majority I demand you vote to ban such obscene material before somebody else gets killed. Signed Concerned BusyBody"
 
MP thinks, "Im in the closet so I can vote for this, after all nobody need know and if I vote against such legislation people might start digging and guess why"
 
Are parliment votes not anon?

This law like so many other is pointless, unnessecary (other than as a vote grabber) and quite likely un-enforcable. Any bad law has a negative effect on other laws. Take the clampdown on traffic speed, net result more unisured, unregistered vehicles and growing animosity towards the police. If the government needs to be seen to do something I would suggest they actually do something constructive and intelligent that does not impinge on the rights of others. A young child was knocked down 3 streets away from here last week, is banning all traffic, from a childs tricycle right up to a 40tonne truck the answer? I don't believe it is. Somebody who has eaten a steak has doubtless killed in the past, should everybody now live of lentils & bread crusts? Why I should I suffer because of the actions of one person?
 
Sadly as we have both noted much of this is nothing more than a vote winning act. I think if passed it will be yet another law that is rarely acted on, like the mobile phone law here or the all bike (pedal not motor) riders must wear helmets. Its a $200 fine to use a mobile phone while driving here and a $50 fine for anyone (children) included to not wear a helmet - I am yet to see either la implemented.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamKeithsslave

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Back in the 80s (before video cassettes had any age restrictions) a number of people were shot dead in a small rural town,
 
Hungerford? Micheal Ryan?
Yes, that is the instance I had in mind. Please forgive me for not always being specific, I find it often helps provoke thought and research sometimes :)
 

the press jumped on the bandwagon claiming the gunman was influenced by the Rambo movie. After the Bulger incident you refer to the press in some forms blames the "chucky" movies. In neither incident, was there ANY evidence to link the crimes with the images, not even circumstancial.
 
Oh I agree, the idea these movies created the problems are purely a manufactured idea by the defence teams lawyers in order to get their clients off, unfortunately too many people believe this to be true.
I have to disagree with you on this point, I believe the vast majority do not believe, or at the very least don't really care. Everything is run now by focus groups, who by their very purpose either have their own agenda, or are picked to support the agenda of those asking questions. Occasionally the media will be dragged onto a bandwagon too thus giving the perception of wider support. In the case of this legislation there were far more groups that could be expected to be "pro-legislation" than anti consulted, simply because there are far more such groups around shouting their opinion, whilst us lifestylers generally sit quietly behind our curtains afraid of being considered dirty etc, all this despite the fact many of can quote the Kinsey report and similar with its comments on the levels of our kind of kink :)

<Snip>
"Dear Member of Parliment, as a concerned member of the moral majority I demand you vote to ban such obscene material before somebody else gets killed. Signed Concerned BusyBody"
 
MP thinks, "Im in the closet so I can vote for this, after all nobody need know and if I vote against such legislation people might start digging and guess why"
 
Are parliment votes not anon?
Not only are they a matter of public record, the current "ruling" party has an overwhelming majority and is ruled internally with a rod of iron, dissent within the ranks is very frowned upon, falling out of favour with the heirarchy is a shortcut to oblivion.
This law like so many other is pointless, unnessecary (other than as a vote grabber) and quite likely un-enforcable. Any bad law has a negative effect on other laws. Take the clampdown on traffic speed, net result more unisured, unregistered vehicles and growing animosity towards the police. If the government needs to be seen to do something I would suggest they actually do something constructive and intelligent that does not impinge on the rights of others. A young child was knocked down 3 streets away from here last week, is banning all traffic, from a childs tricycle right up to a 40tonne truck the answer? I don't believe it is. Somebody who has eaten a steak has doubtless killed in the past, should everybody now live of lentils & bread crusts? Why I should I suffer because of the actions of one person?
 
Sadly as we have both noted much of this is nothing more than a vote winning act. I think if passed it will be yet another law that is rarely acted on, like the mobile phone law here or the all bike (pedal not motor) riders must wear helmets. Its a $200 fine to use a mobile phone while driving here and a $50 fine for anyone (children) included to not wear a helmet - I am yet to see either la implemented.

Here too we have a mobile phone law as a result of a string of collisions and a vocal campaign group. What is overlooked is that there have been offences (with the potential of far more serious penalties) on the statute books for decades that covered all aspects of the new law. As a result, 20 years ago when using 2way radio I could have been prosecuted at the very least with "failure to maintain proper control of a motor vehicle", now if I use that self same radio it is not covered by the new mobile phone law and so most younger police officers have never come across the failure to maintain.. so I can should I wish drive badly using my radio and escape prosecution.

We do not have a cycle helmet law yet, I to am sort of surprised by that, but then I think how rarely I actually see children cycling and so am not surprised there have not been a couple of gory deaths for the media to dig into. Add on the fact that the police are so overstretched with other "priorities" it would be yet another law that would rarely be enforced properly.